Banning cars from city centres isn’t the ‘win’ you think it is

Councils insist that the alleged benefits of moves like this outweigh the disadvantages. Yet no one who has any experience with being disabled or pregnant would say that

One London council has, with great fanfare, just announced plans to make 75 per cent of its streets “traffic free”. It says this will result in a “cleaner and greener borough” in a glossy PDF brochure extolling the plan’s virtues. The trouble is, despite Hackney (which is Labour-run) loudly trumpeting its deep and abiding commitment to diversity and inclusion, the impact on disabled people goes unmentioned.

I have been covering schemes like this, and their dire impact on disabled people, for the last couple of years. They are a nationwide problem. So-called “school streets” have appeared (and sometimes disappeared) in the London boroughs of Islington, Tower Hamlets and Redbridge. Scotland got the ball rolling in 2015. York, meanwhile, closed its city centre off to disabled people, claiming advice from the police. Terrorism, you see (which made it a victory for them). Rarely is the impact on disabled people properly considered, but Hackney’s behaviour is particularly egregious. It is only when you get to the 700-plus pages of council cabinet papers that you find disability mentioned – on page 405. It’s there, presumably, because disability is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act. But what you see does not feel like the result of a careful and considered assessment.

We are told, for example, that this particular council “has lower than average rates of residents who identify as having a disability”. So that makes it OK to skewer those that do? Or to forget it is part of a city with lots of disabled residents? It’s called London, in case the council hadn’t noticed. But wait: “Disabled Londoners are most likely to use public transport for the purposes of shopping, personal business and leisure. They are considerably less likely to commute than non-disabled Londoners due to lower rates of employment (partly due to the older age profile of disabled people).”

This is a fallacy. To all (and any) UK-wide councils considering the same thing: have you ever wondered why that might be? Does it not occur to you that many disabled people are left stuck in their homes, which hinders their seeking employment or doing anything else – precisely because of policies like this? Using public transport in a city can be a frightening experience. Take it from me, the disabled traveller feels a bit like they are heading into no man’s land. Abuse, a lack of help and the ever-present fear of getting stuck somewhere dangerous that you don’t want to be.

Consultation only highlights the problems with these kinds of restrictions. In Hackney’s case, one person said they relied on Uber but “at the moment it is impossible to get an Uber in my zone – they simply cancel when they realise they need to comply with the restrictions”. Another said those restrictions had “increased the cost of taxis – yet another way that being disabled costs me more”. I hear you there, my friend, I hear you. Here’s another commenter: “I’m heavily pregnant and cannot simply hop on a bike, I have young children who cannot walk everywhere; I have struggled to get to the hospital for appointments and I’m scared about what will happen when I go into labour.”

Women may have very good reason to balk at plans that make it difficult, nay impossible, to get cabs at night. London is not a safe city. Many may, in light of David Carrick and Wayne Couzens, be wary of approaching a police officer for help. And who could blame them?

But, all too often, those concerns are quashed. Councils insist that the alleged benefits of moves like this outweigh the disadvantages. Yet no one who has any experience with being disabled or pregnant would say that. Making shallow concessions – such as pledging that “some” streets will be open to blue badge holders – does nothing for those trying to get cabs. And it’s not much of a concession.

Driving with a blue badge in London is nerve wracking. I do it because I have to. Tripping cameras is an occupational hazard. One of the things that makes disability horribly expensive is councils like Hackney behaving in a sneaky and underhand manner to generate fines.

Disability Rights UK’s head of policy Fazilet Hadi agrees. She says: “Councils know they have a legal obligation under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. “How it can be perceived as “reasonable” to restrict access (and, by extension, mobility) across an entire borough by 75 per cent beggars belief.”

Don’t get me wrong: disabled people want better air quality, too. But not at the expense of freedom of mobility. Nobody is thinking about our access needs; and meanwhile, councils like Hackney insist they “promote the social model of disability”. People are disabled “not by their impairments or differences, but by barriers put up by society”, they extol. Well, with schemes like this, they’re callously throwing up further barriers.

The words of another disabled resident who responded to the Hackney consultation are left ringing in my ears: they pleaded for a “solution”. Sadly, they’re not likely to get one. And neither is anyone else.